Messages

"Create a list of things to do, in the order you intend to address them, and make that list public.  And then follow-through on working through that list.  And then, give a 5-minute monthly updates on your progress.")"

I wanted to address this statement by Josh.
Sorry, Josh, but thats not exactly how business-to-consumer products work. The "list of things" change based on user feedback, and then so does the priorities. I have worked as software developer in quite a few companies, and can assure you that there are some issues that never gets fixed, it is usually because the project is understaffed, or because the roi is not significant to warrant that change.

Regarding refusal help from Internet stranger, I understand your stance, but I also understand dominion's stance. The efforts and time to bring someone up to date with the codebase, and then vetting their commits, is a job in itself. I have had interns and juniors reported to me, and there were some days when i was doing nothing but doing code review. Considering stef is doing most of the coding by himself, i dont think it is a good use of his time.

I am sorry in all that explanation I didnt really understand the point you are trying to make  :(
Normally I would stop replying after this point, but you seem like you genuinely want to understand others point of view so I will give it one last shot. Also, I would recommend joining the discord server, your post and replies will get more traction there and you will get much better answers to your question, because not every one checks forum, so the assumption that players will not BL you because they know your point of view from this post is not very solid.

Now coming back to your point, I dont understand at all how wolf den scenario and enhance scenario is similar. Sorry I cannot get it through my thick head. Wolf den gives you -3vp for a unique, and you as a player, is responsible to keep track of duplicates and unique, whereas, enhance is used to trash something that is already in your hand, and doing a trash with enhance and undoing that, doing enhance again on different card, with wolf den or palace NOT involved is completely fine, I dont understand the counter argument to that. I will try again, if no new information is revealed (no new cards drawn, triumphal arch, palace, wolf den and cards like these which involves tracking are not involved), undo requests are fair and should be granted. And you are well within your rights to refuse that, but chances are you will be BL after denying fair undo requests, irrespective of your stand here on this forum. Take care :)

[if no new information is revealed, undo grants are considered fair and should be granted]

Randomusername. I definitely see it as very similar in the sense of "I now realize that I can't win after executing my INTENDED plan".

To anyone still following this, let me boil this down to a broader family of question. This is now not about justifying my previous game, but about how undo's should be handled late game.
Let's assume that in a different hypothetical hand, Villain is on his last turn and if he doesn't end the game, Hero will. Villain has different ways he can play out his last turn. One way would give him a 5% chance of victory, another 20%, another 50%, another 80%, and another immediate victory.
Villain, unaware currently of other plans, chooses to go with the 5% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 5% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 20% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 20% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 50% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 50% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 80% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 80% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give allow him to win immediately. He requests undo and goes on to win outright.

I assume most would agree that something is wrong with villain doing this (but maybe I'm wrong in that assumption). At what point does it become wrong? Should this maybe just be granted once (although that doesn't really seem justifiable)? Is this scenario different if the probabilities changed (such as changing 100% win to 70% win as the upper limit, or maybe even something low like 30%)?
Most people who have responded to this thread make it sound like the following information does not matter: villain only considering other options after he played out his entire buy phase as INTENDED to then realize that the victory counters looks very unfortunate for him winning.

If no new information was revealed, villain/opponent can try whatever he/she wants (5%, 10%, 20% backtrack, 30% whatever), and I will grant the undo. Again, I want to emphasize because it seems you are conflicted about the definition of fair undo (which is subjective anyway, and a made up term according to consensus here on this platform), if no new information is revealed, undo grants are considered fair and should be granted.
Buying duchy and wolf den kicking in, is not acceptable, because you should have kept track of your buys..another example, buying gold thinking palace would give you 3vp but realizing that you should have bought silver instead is a kind of undo I wouldnt grant, because again, you should have kept track of those buys. In the last two cases, new information was revealed which wouldnt warrant an undo, and i have seen top players not even asking for an undo in those cases, because they realize it is not fair.

Let me give you another example, I was playing with a very good player who tried to do a 3-pile and would have won, but the game involved page, and page was one of those 3-piles, but by mistake he ended up returning pages in play so 3-pile case was not there anymore (auto exchange is tricky, very tricky), and he ended his turn. Now I could have won, but i knew this was a genuine mistake, so I immediately granted him the undo. Your opponent, similarly, realized he made a mistake with buys and he wanted to fix it. "Enhance" is a new card, we are all learning these new menagerie cards, and the interface is not super intuitive for some things, at least for people who have not spent hours on it. Is it too wrong to expect some slack? Trust me, if you continue to deny undos towards the end of a game due to one made up reason or the other, but those undos were fair ask, you will get blacklisted, and soon you wont have good players to play with. 

I feel i repeated myself a lot there. Sorry

That undo should have been granted, or at least I would have granted it. You mentioned that after buying Duchy, and wolf den kicking in, asking for undo wasnt a fair request, and you were right, but you are doing an apples to oranges comparison when you bring in the case in question. Your opponent realized a better strategy and wanted to execute the same, few seconds after they made a buy....no new information was revealed, so I fail to understand the reason for denial, when you usually are okay granting undo requests. It seems that you were waiting for them to make one wrong buy and then use that as an argument to deny undo because you knew you could win on next turn. I bet that if you were winning by quite a margin, irrespective of their buys, you would have granted that undo right away. Anyway, as bluey pointed out, if you spec high level games, you will see that the undo request is immediately granted, given no new information was revealed. It makes the game fast as well. I generally just blacklist someone if they are not okay to grant a fair undo, that keep things simple for me.